If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Detroit_News)   Your tax dollars at work: A Detroit grant helps low-income people buy business attire for job interviews. Two people, be exact. For a measly $5.5 million. Each   (detroitnews.com) divider line 13
    More: Fail, incomes  
•       •       •

2987 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Mar 2012 at 5:29 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-03-08 02:05:56 PM
1 votes:

SurfaceTension: If only there was some argument to be made that smaller government that keeps money close to home is better than federal government spending...


Bears repeating.

/I spent a lot of summers working in a Republican-run municipal government (the one which proudly gave the world Sen. Al D'Amato), and that experience convinced me that the whole "smaller, more responsive government" crap is a lie. It's just government with less oversight, because the press doesn't pay as much attention.
2012-03-08 12:21:19 PM
1 votes:

quoinguy: Aaaaaaand this is this same mindset that wants to expand government-run healthcare.

Libs constantly biatch about this type of waste, how inefficient the military supposedly is, whine about the massive waste for road building projects, ignore the economic inviability and waste within the Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans hospital system, but think government can efficiently run healthcare for everyone?

Even assuming perfect efficiency for the $11,000,000 divided by the 400 people to be assisted, as stated in the article, the government thought spending $27,500 per person was a good idea. Setting up a poor-folks boutique? Really?

Running those in need through existing agencies, who already have the paperwork and programs in place for basic job interview coaching, would be basically free. Allotting a generous $300 per person for new clothes and a stipend to the administering agency totals $120,000 in funds.

Every person who touched this program and approved one penny more than that should be shot.

/The most mind-blowing lib "thought process": "Spending isn't the problem! We need more taxes!!!"


Reading comprehension called, you failed at it.
2012-03-08 08:38:36 AM
1 votes:

MindStalker: No read the article again, its not $11 million its $148,000 for clothes or $370 per intended suit.
The $11 million was the total grant that contains many things, $148,000 was for the clothes.



MindStalker: No read the article again, its not $11 million its $148,000 for clothes or $370 per intended suit.
The $11 million was the total grant that contains many things, $148,000 was for the clothes.


MindStalker: No read the article again, its not $11 million its $148,000 for clothes or $370 per intended suit.
The $11 million was the total grant that contains many things, $148,000 was for the clothes.

2012-03-08 08:27:41 AM
1 votes:

SurfaceTension: If only there was some argument to be made that smaller government that keeps money close to home is better than federal government spending...


Smaller government would rely even more on the kind of private contractor that acted fraudulently here. If they were govt employees running the thing, you'd have an argument. But it wasn't so you're just plain wrong.
2012-03-08 07:59:52 AM
1 votes:

No Such Agency:
PRIVATE CONTRACTOR. Government's failing here is hiring a crooked profiteer, not "bureaucracy".


This is pretty much the case at all levels of government and it is exactly how conservatives want the system to work.

www.prairiefirenewspaper.com
2012-03-08 06:10:42 AM
1 votes:

wildcardjack: Part of an $11 million grant intended to provide business attire to 400 low-income job-seekers ...

Unholy fark... That's... $27.5k per person. What the hell. Even with the intended results they were better off handing out $500 suits to the first 22,000 people who turned up.

This is why Detroit needs to be torn down and the people scattered to the four winds. And the politicians cast in bronze.


Don't do that. We have enough people from the city moving this way. No thanks. Unless you want them to move in your town.
2012-03-08 05:59:25 AM
1 votes:
Great idea even if the execution was terrible. An interview-quality suit could be an onerous expense if you are broke, and no, you can't show up in jeans and a tshirt. The commerce students at my university used to run a clothing drive for exactly this purpose, except they actually got the clothes to people who needed them.

Triumph:
So, government allocates money because buying someone a suit to get a job is cheaper than welfare. Sounds good except government is so broken it gives six figures to a store for outfitting two customers. There's only one fix to this problem - raise taxes to pay for more bureacracy.

"The audit found the Department of Human Services hired a contractor to run the boutique. The contractor negotiated the purchase of clothing without involving city officials and did not give them keys to the center.

The contractor also did not provide proof of the receipt of the clothing to auditors."


PRIVATE CONTRACTOR. Government's failing here is hiring a crooked profiteer, not "bureaucracy".
2012-03-08 05:46:38 AM
1 votes:

Triumph: So, government allocates money because buying someone a suit to get a job is cheaper than welfare. Sounds good except government is so broken it gives six figures to a store for outfitting two customers. There's only one fix to this problem - raise taxes to pay for more bureacracy.


Or maybe don't outsource administration of the program to an incompetent/crooked contractor.
2012-03-08 05:41:25 AM
1 votes:
fta: According to the audit, the DHS was supposed to help 400 people between October 2010 and September 2011 but instead served only two.

Great idea, piss poor implementation.

Somebody's head should roll for this but don't toss the baby out with the bathwater here.
2012-03-08 05:34:33 AM
1 votes:
Part of an $11 million grant intended to provide business attire to 400 low-income job-seekers ...

Unholy fark... That's... $27.5k per person. What the hell. Even with the intended results they were better off handing out $500 suits to the first 22,000 people who turned up.

This is why Detroit needs to be torn down and the people scattered to the four winds. And the politicians cast in bronze.
2012-03-08 04:44:30 AM
1 votes:
So, government allocates money because buying someone a suit to get a job is cheaper than welfare. Sounds good except government is so broken it gives six figures to a store for outfitting two customers. There's only one fix to this problem - raise taxes to pay for more bureacracy.
2012-03-08 01:53:06 AM
1 votes:

Fark Me To Tears: Okay... so you take someone who is low-income and dress them in clothes they can't afford... for what purpose? To impress a recruiter with their clothing? Unless their job is going to be modeling clothes, what good does that do?


I just wanted to win that farking bet with Pickering. Get off my ass.
2012-03-08 12:05:00 AM
1 votes:
Among the most telling findings, which will be discussed today during a City Council committee meeting, is that a third-party contractor advanced $148,000 to a downtown Detroit clothing store and opened an account, but did not include the city on the account.

The $11 million was the entire grant, not the section for the clothing
 
Displayed 13 of 13 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report